“The Second Integration” and the Reconstruction of Cultural Subjectivity

The question of cultural subjectivity is one that has been repeatedly touched upon in the course of the development of Chinese culture over the past century or more. The “debates between the ancient and the modern, China and the West” in different periods have all actually unfolded around this question. Such a problem-consciousness has continuously surfaced in the ideological and cultural transformations since reform and opening up, frequently appearing in various controversies within theoretical circles.

文化主体性问题，是一百多年来中华文化发展道路上不断触及的问题。不同时期的“古今中西之争”，实际都围绕这一问题而展开。这样的问题意识在改革开放以来的思想文化变迁中不断浮现出来，经常出现在理论界的各种争论之中。

General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development [1]1 The Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development was held in Beijing on June 2, 2023, where Xi Jinping delivered a key speech on cultural issues. directly responds to and profoundly elucidates this lingering question of cultural subjectivity in modern and contemporary intellectual and cultural history, further from the dimension of the “Two Integrations” [2]2 The “Two Integrations” refers to integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture. The “Second Integration” is the latter. in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, and especially from the dimension of the “Second Integration.” General Secretary Xi pointed out clearly: “This subjectivity was established by the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people on Chinese soil; it was established on the basis of creatively transforming and innovatively developing fine traditional Chinese culture, inheriting revolutionary culture, and developing advanced socialist culture, while drawing on and absorbing all outstanding achievements of human civilization; it was established through integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture.”

习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上的重要讲话，进一步从马克思主义中国化的“两个结合”维度，特别是“第二个结合”维度，直接回应并深刻阐释了这个近现代思想文化史上挥之不去的文化主体性问题。习近平总书记鲜明指出：“这一主体性是中国共产党带领中国人民在中国大地上建立起来的；是在创造性转化、创新性发展中华优秀传统文化，继承革命文化，发展社会主义先进文化的基础上，借鉴吸收人类一切优秀文明成果的基础上建立起来的；是通过把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际、同中华优秀传统文化相结合建立起来的。”

General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important discourse on cultural subjectivity is a profound theoretical summary of the achievements and experience of cultural construction led by the Party over more than a century, especially since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [3]3 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2012, marking the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership.. It provides ideological guidance for resolving the “debates between the ancient and the modern, China and the West,” promoting cultural heritage and development, and consolidating cultural subjectivity, fully demonstrating a cultural subject consciousness and cultural vitality characterized by cultural confidence, openness and inclusiveness, and upholding fundamental principles while breaking new ground.

习近平总书记关于文化主体性的重要论述，是对党领导人民百余年特别是十八大以来文化建设成就与经验的深刻理论总结，为破解“古今中西之争”、推动文化传承与发展、巩固文化主体性提供了思想指导，充分展现了文化自信、开放包容、守正创新的文化主体意识与文化生命力。

Cultural subjectivity is not a closed, rigid, or ossified historical determination, nor can it be described by applying a relationship of primacy and subordination, or substance and function, between the native and the foreign. Cultural subjectivity is a cultural life consciousness that possesses an awareness of cultural lineage, engages in autonomous creation, and attains a dimension of transcendence. As a culturally defined firm self, it possesses historicity, creativity, and transcendence. Without historicity, there is no cultural identity; without creativity, there is no cultural vitality; without transcendence, there is no rational awakening of the cultural subject, and it easily remains at the level of empirical or local knowledge.

文化主体性不是一种封闭的、固守的、僵化的历史规定，也不是套用本土与外来之间的主次、体用关系所能描述的。文化主体性是一种具有文脉自觉、进行自主创造、达到超越维度的文化生命意识。作为文化意义上的坚定自我，它具有历史性、创造性、超越性。没有历史性就没有文化身份认同，没有创造性就没有文化生命力，没有超越性就没有文化主体的理性觉醒，容易停留于经验或地方性知识。

The modernization of Chinese culture involves a process of reconstructing cultural subjectivity. Reconstruction does not mean tearing down and starting over, but rather the self-renewal of cultural life, regenerating in a new cultural form. Chinese culture began its humanistic and moral awakening in the period between the Shang and Zhou dynasties [4]4 The Shang (c. 1600–1046 BCE) and Zhou (1046–256 BCE) dynasties are the earliest historically documented periods of Chinese civilization., giving rise to an awareness of immanent transcendence, forming its cultural identity and continuously renewing itself. Historically, the cultural life represented by the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, after undergoing historical changes and absorbing the doctrines of Buddhism, emerged in the form of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism [5]5 Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism (11th–17th centuries) was a revival of Confucian thought that incorporated Buddhist and Daoist metaphysical elements.; this was a kind of reconstruction of cultural subjectivity, embodying the vitality of Chinese culture in upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground. Since the late Qing dynasty, Chinese civilization has encountered “changes unseen in three thousand years” [6]6 A phrase echoing the late Qing reformer Li Hongzhang’s description of the unprecedented crisis facing China in the 19th century., and Chinese cultural subjectivity has faced an even more severe and profound task of reconstruction. However, whether it was the “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for application” theory [7]7 A late 19th-century reformist slogan advocating selective adoption of Western technology while preserving Chinese cultural essence. or the “wholesale Westernization” theory [8]8 A radical intellectual position in the early 20th century that called for abandoning Chinese tradition entirely in favor of Western models., both had serious theoretical defects and failed in practice, because neither properly grasped the laws of cultural life. The “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for application” theory could not escape the rut of cultural centrism, while the “wholesale Westernization” theory completely lost its own cultural subjectivity. The path of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, on the other hand, has activated Chinese civilization through the “Two Integrations,” and especially the “Second Integration” has activated the inner cultural life of Chinese civilization, powerfully promoting the reconstruction of Chinese cultural subjectivity.

中华文化的现代化有一个文化主体性的重建过程。重建不是推倒重来，而是文化生命的自我更新，以新的文化形态再生。中华文化在殷周之际开始了人文道德觉醒，出现了内在超越意识，形成了自己的文化身份并不断自我更新。历史上，周孔所代表的文化生命，经过历史变迁，吸收了佛学义理，以宋明理学形态出现，就是一种文化主体性的重建，体现了中华文化守正创新的生命力。晚清以来，中华文明遭遇“三千年未有之大变局”，中华文化主体性面临更加严峻而深刻的重建课题。但无论是“中体西用论”，还是“全盘西化论”，理论上都存在严重缺陷，实践上都失败了，因为它们都没有很好把握文化生命的规律。“中体西用论”无法摆脱文化中心主义窠臼，“全盘西化论”则完全丧失了自己的文化主体性。马克思主义中国化的道路，则通过“两个结合”激活了中华文明，特别是“第二个结合”激活了中华文明内在的文化生命，有力推动了中华文化主体性的重建。

Whether interpreted as China’s “Renaissance” or China’s “Enlightenment,” the May Fourth New Culture Movement [9]9 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was a cultural and political protest movement that rejected traditional Confucianism and promoted science and democracy. represented an awakening of the cultural life consciousness of ceaseless self-renewal. From the final “ethical awakening” to the “great awakening” brought by Marxism, an “Age of Awakening” [10]10 A reference to the period around the founding of the CPC in 1921, often called the “Age of Awakening” in Chinese historiography. was constituted. However, the historical process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context shows that the true “great awakening” was not a single era but a long century. Only by experiencing one historical crisis after another, undergoing one ideological emancipation after another, and realizing one cultural creation after another, can our spirit gradually move from passivity to initiative, toward rational confidence, inclusiveness, and maturity; can our cultural subjectivity be gradually reconstructed through the “Two Integrations”; and can we forge a new, organically unified cultural life entity.

五四新文化运动无论以中国的“文艺复兴”还是以中国的“启蒙运动”来诠释，都代表了一种自强不息的文化生命意识的觉醒。从最后的“伦理觉悟”到马克思主义带来的“伟大觉醒”，构成了一个“觉醒年代”。然而，马克思主义中国化的历史进程表明，真正的“伟大觉醒”不是一个年代，而是一个漫长的世纪。只有经历一次又一次历史危难，经历一次又一次思想解放，实现一次又一次文化创造，我们精神上才能不断从被动走向主动，走向理性的自信、包容与成熟，我们的文化主体性才能通过“两个结合”而逐步重建，我们才能造就有机统一的新的文化生命体。

So why does Marxism possess such a powerful force to promote the reconstruction of Chinese cultural subjectivity? First, because Marxism is critical and deconstructive of Western civilization and modernity; it has played a major role in overcoming the limitations of Western civilization, resisting the brutality of capitalist modernity, and preventing the invasion of cultural colonialism, which is conducive to the reconstruction of Chinese cultural subjectivity. Second, Marxism can guide the direction of the reconstruction of Chinese cultural subjectivity in aspects such as criticizing the remnants of feudal culture, affirming science and democracy, and revealing the laws of modernization. Third, as a kind of new humanism, Marxism’s cultural values are more in line with the cultural ideals of the Chinese people; in the course of its Sinicization practice, it has gradually achieved a deep integration with the Chinese humanistic spirit.

那么，马克思主义为什么具有这样强大力量推动中华文化主体性的重建？首先，因为马克思主义对西方文明与现代性具有批判性、解构性，在克服西方文明的局限、抵御资本主义现代性野蛮、防止文化殖民主义侵入方面发挥了重大作用，有利于中华文化主体性的重建；其次，马克思主义在批判封建残余文化、肯定科学与民主、揭示现代化规律等方面则可以引领中华文化主体性的重建方向；再次，马克思主义作为一种新人文主义，其文化价值观更符合中国人的文化理想，在其中国化的实践过程中，逐步实现了与中华人文精神的深度融合。

Hegel said that a cultured nation without metaphysics is like a temple richly adorned in all other respects but lacking a holy of holies. [11]11 A paraphrase of Hegel’s remark in the preface to *The Science of Logic*. Comrade Mao Zedong said that “learning” is not divided into Chinese and Western; the basic theories are consistent between China and the West. [12]12 Mao Zedong’s comment on the universality of basic theoretical knowledge, from his 1942 talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art. Chinese culture possesses a concern for the Way of the world and a metaphysical tradition, investigating the relationship between Heaven and humanity and understanding the changes of past and present, placing the meaning of human existence within the human world. Like Marxism, it inquires into the universal laws of human society. Marxism, in the era of industrial civilization, investigates the relationship between Heaven and humanity and understands the changes of past and present, critiques atomistic individualism and the alienation of Western modernity, emphasizes the socio-historical process of realizing human value, and emphasizes the free and comprehensive development of the individual. Such a humanistic ideal is more in line with Chinese cultural values than liberalism. Here, the essence of the human being is not an abstraction inherent in a single individual; in its reality, it is a socio-historical existence. Without sociality and historicity, there is no human culturality. Chinese culture seems to be a natural hotbed for accepting this thought. Chinese culture emphasizes transforming people through culture and learning to become a person; this speaks precisely to the process of human socialization and historicization, elevating natural life into moral life and becoming a cultural subject. Here, the practice of human moral life is a socio-historical cultural process; it is both a process of self-cultivation, family regulation, state governance, and world peace [13]13 A classical Confucian formula from *The Great Learning* describing the progressive stages of moral cultivation and social governance. and a process of assisting in the transformation and nourishment of Heaven and Earth. [14]14 A phrase from the *Doctrine of the Mean* referring to the human role in completing the creative processes of nature. This moral life consciousness and cultural subject spirit of ceaseless self-renewal and unremitting struggle thus connect with the spirit of historical materialism, which freely and consciously creates history and transforms society. Therefore, it is no accident that early Communists accepted Marxism and quickly integrated Marxism’s political idealism with Chinese culture’s moral idealism. Comrade Mao Zedong, during the Yan’an period [15]15 The Yan’an period (1935–1948) was the CPC’s base area in Shaanxi, where Mao Zedong developed his theoretical and political program., revived the tradition from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, advocated permanent struggle as the primary political morality, and emphasized transforming the subjective world while transforming the objective world; this fully conforms to the inner logic of Chinese culture.

黑格尔说，有文化的民族竟没有形而上学，就像一座庙，其他各方面都装饰得富丽堂皇，却没有至圣的神那样。毛泽东同志说，“学”不分中西，基本理论是中外一致的。中华文化具有天下道理的关怀与形而上传统，究天人之际、通古今之变，将人的意义安放在人世间，与马克思主义一样，追问人类社会普遍规律。马克思主义则在工业文明时代究天人之际、通古今之变，批判原子个体主义与西方现代性的异化，强调人的价值实现的社会历史过程，强调人的自由全面发展。这样的人文理想，比自由主义更符合中华文化价值。在这里，人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，其现实性上是社会历史存在。离开社会性和历史性，就没有人的文化性。中华文化仿佛就是接受这个思想的天然温床。中华文化强调以文化人、学以成人，讲的就是人的社会化和历史化过程，将自然生命提升为道德生命，成为一个文化主体。在这里，人的道德生命实践是一个社会历史的文化过程，既是一个修齐治平过程，也是一个赞天地之化育过程。这种自强不息、奋斗不止的道德生命意识与文化主体精神，就与自由自觉创造历史、改造社会的历史唯物主义精神相贯通了。因此，早期共产党人接受马克思主义，并很快把马克思主义的政治理想主义与中华文化的道德理想主义融合起来，就不是偶然的了。毛泽东同志在延安时期重提从孔夫子到孙中山的传统，倡导永久奋斗为第一政治道德，强调改造世界的同时改造主观世界，完全符合中华文化的内在逻辑。

Since the 1980s, new humanism has gradually become familiar to domestic intellectual circles. People have seen more clearly that Marxism attempts to transcend the tensions of Western modernity, to achieve a genuine resolution of the contradictions between humanity and nature and between human and human, and to achieve a genuine resolution of the struggles between freedom and necessity and between the individual and the species. However, such a new humanism lacks soil within Western civilization but has its cultural genes within Chinese civilization. The Chinese humanistic spirit emphasizes a relationship of unity of Heaven and humanity in virtue between humanity and nature, a relationship of sharing the same mind and virtue among people, and emphasizes the relationship of all people as brothers and all things as companions [16]16 A phrase from the Song Neo-Confucian Zhang Zai’s *Western Inscription*, expressing universal brotherhood and ecological harmony. and the unity of all beings. It is precisely because of the commonality between these two humanistic spirits that it is possible to understand why Chinese cultural subjectivity can be activated through Marxism and reconstructed through Marxism; it is precisely because these two humanistic spirits have already had a basis for integration through long-term cultural practice that we can today propose the “Second Integration” and see it powerfully embodied in the Party’s innovative theory.

20世纪80年代以来，新人文主义逐渐被国内知识界所熟悉。人们更加清晰地看到，马克思主义试图超越西方现代性的紧张关系，实现人和自然之间、人和人之间矛盾的真正解决，实现自由和必然、个体和类之间斗争的真正解决。但是，这样一种新人文主义，在西方文明内部缺乏土壤，而在中华文明中有其文化基因。中华人文精神，强调人与自然之间是一种天人合德的关系，人与人之间是同心同德的关系，强调民胞物与、一体同仁的关系。正是由于这两种人文精神的相通性，才可能理解中华文化主体性为什么可以通过马克思主义而激活，通过马克思主义而重建；正是由于这两种人文精神在长期的文化实践中已经有了融通的基础，我们今天才能提出“第二个结合”，并在党的创新理论中得到强有力的体现。

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that after long-term efforts, we are now more capable than any previous era of resolving the "ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate," and we are also more urgently in need than any previous era of a batch of cultural achievements that fuse the ancient and the modern and connect China and the West. However, looking at the overall strength of current philosophical and social science research, due to long-standing disciplinary barriers, deficiencies in knowledge structure, and insufficient academic inclusiveness, there is a serious shortage of intellectual talents in the intellectual circles who are thoroughly versed in both China and the West and broadly learned in both the ancient and the modern, and the innovation in theoretical explanation cannot keep pace with the Party's theoretical innovation, leaving the construction of an independent knowledge system a long and arduous task. The proposal of the "Second Integration"[17]17 The "Second Integration" (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's fine traditional culture, as proposed by Xi Jinping. It is distinguished from the "First Integration," which is the integration of Marxism with the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution and construction. is another ideological emancipation of our Party, opening up a broader space for cultural innovation. It will inevitably break down disciplinary barriers and academic fences, adhere to the three principles of cultural confidence, openness and inclusiveness, and upholding fundamental principles while breaking new ground, promote cultural inheritance and development, and further consolidate and strengthen the subjectivity of Chinese culture.

习近平总书记指出，经过长期努力，我们比以往任何一个时代都更有条件破解“古今中西之争”，也比以往任何一个时代都更迫切需要一批熔铸古今、汇通中西的文化成果。但从当前哲学社会科学研究整体实力来看，由于长期的学科壁垒、知识结构缺陷与学术包容度不够，知识界学贯中西、博通古今的思想性学术人才严重不足，学理阐释创新跟不上党的理论创新步伐，自主知识体系的建构还任重而道远。“第二个结合”的提出，是我们党又一次的思想解放，打开了更加广阔的文化创新空间，必将打破学科壁垒与学术藩篱，坚持文化自信、开放包容、守正创新三原则，推动文化传承发展，进一步巩固和壮大中华文化主体性。

(Author's brief introduction: Li Wentang, Professor at the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (National Academy of Governance))

（作者简介：李文堂，中共中央党校（国家行政学院）教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心